Abstract:Previous studies have shown that people would like to sacrifice benefits to themselves in order to avoid inequitable outcomes, not only when they receive less than others (disadvantageous inequity aversion) but also when they receive more (advantageous inequity aversion). This feature is captured by the theory of inequity aversion. The present study was inspired by what appears to be asymmetry in the research paradigm toward advantageous inequity aversion. Specifically, studies that supported the existence of advantageous inequity aversion always relied on the paradigm in which participants can determine allocations. Thus, it is interesting to know what would occur if participants could not determine allocations or simply passed judgment on predetermined allocations. To address this, a behavioral experiment (N = 118) and a skin conductance response (SCR) experiment (N = 29) were adopted to compare participants' preferences for advantageous inequity directly when allocations were determined and when allocations were predetermined in an allocating task. In the determined condition, participants could divide by themselves a sum of money between themselves and a matched person, whereas in the predetermined condition, they could simply indicate their satisfaction with an equivalent program-generated allocation. It was found that, compared with those in the determined condition, participants in the predetermined condition behaved as if they liked the advantageous inequity and equity to the same degree (Experiment One) and that the SCRs elicited by advantageous inequity had no differences from those elicited by equity, suggesting that participants did not feel negatively toward advantageous inequity in this situation (Experiment Two). The present study provided mutual corroboration (behavioral and electrophysiological data) to document that advantageous inequity aversion may differ as a function of the individual's role in determining allocations, and it would disappear if individual cannot determine allocations.

Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity

Differences in Cooperation Between Social Dilemmas of Gain and Loss

Increased Neural Responses to Unfairness in a Loss Context

Advantageous Inequity Aversion Does Not Always Exist: the Role of Determining Allocations Modulates Preferences for Advantageous Inequity

Inequality Aversion or Reciprocity?——An Investigation of Two Kinds of Fairness in the Ultimatum Game

Fairness decision-making of opportunity equity in gain and loss contexts

Sharing losses in dictator and ultimatum games: A meta-analysis✩

Neural Responses to Unfairness and Fairness Depend on Self-Contribution to the Income.

Adaptive role switching promotes fairness in networked ultimatum game

Heterogenous Allocation of Chips Promotes Fairness in the Ultimatum Game

Social comparisons differentially affect fair and unfair processing in ultimatum bargaining

Whether others were treated equally affects neural responses to unfairness in the Ultimatum Game.

Against the proportionality principle: Experimental findings on bargaining over losses

Common and distinct equity preferences in children and adults

Probabilistic fair behaviors spark its boost in the Ultimatum game: the strength of good Samaritans

The Neurocomputational Mechanism Underlying Decision-Making on Unfairness to Self and Others

The Effect of Similarity on the Evolution of Fairness in the Ultimatum Game

Effects of Empathy on the Evolutionary Dynamics of Fairness in Group-Structured Systems.

Proposers' Economic Status Affects Behavioral and Neural Responses to Unfairness

Neural Correlates of Proposers’ Fairness Perception in Punishment and Non-Punishment Economic Games

Gender Differences in Behavioral and Neural Responses to Unfairness Under Social Pressure